Jukka, If the font happens to have lunar breve at U+0306, whereas the letter й has the rounded bowl breve, using CGJ should guarantee to achieve distinctive rendering, because <и, CGJ, U+0306> is not canonically equivalent to <и, U+0306> (cf. "The sequences <a, umlaut> and <a, CGJ, umlaut> are not canonically equivalent.") and therefore the renderer must not be allowed to pick the glyph for й instead as its canonical composition. This is a hack, but a legal hack.
Leo On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]> wrote: > 2014-07-02 20:34, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > CGJ would be better used to prevent canonical compositions but it won't >> normally give a distinctive semantic. >> > > In the question, visual difference was desired. The Unicode FAQ says: > “The semantics of CGJ are such that it should impact only searching and > sorting, for systems which have been tailored to distinguish it, while > being otherwise ignored in interpretation. The CGJ character was encoded > with this purpose in mind.” > http://www.unicode.org/faq/char_combmark.html > > So CGJ is to be used when you specifically want the same rendering but > wish to make a distinction in processing. > > Yucca > > > > _______________________________________________ > Unicode mailing list > [email protected] > http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode >
_______________________________________________ Unicode mailing list [email protected] http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
